UNITED STATES 1029

United States District Court, Northern District of New York, 3 August 2021
(Chongqing Loncin Engine Parts Co. Ltd. & Anr v. New Monarch Machine Tool, Inc.)
 

03 - 08 - 2021

UNITED STATES 1029

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, S. W. Schill (ed.), Vol. XLVII (2022)
Jurisdiction United States
Summary


The District Court ruled that the tribunal’s failure to render the award within the six-month period as stipulated under the CIETAC arbitration rules did not fall within the scope of Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention (arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties), as the tribunal had received permission from the President of the Arbitration Court of the CEITAC to extend the deadline for rendering the award. The District Court further ruled that a delay in rendering the arbitral award does not constitute a
violation of the United States’ public policy for the purposes of Article V(2)(b) of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) must be construed very narrowly to encompass only those circumstances where enforcement would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice. The Court further rejected respondent’s contention that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding attorney’s fees and costs to claimants, noting that while the parties’ contracts appeared ambiguous as to whether attorney’s fees could be awarded by a tribunal, pursuant to the CIETAC Rules, the tribunal had the power to award attorney’s fees.

Related topics
307

The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.

Interest on award
501

The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.

Grounds are exhaustive
503

The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.

Burden of proof on respondent
512 Ground c: Excess by arbitrator of his authority - Excess of authority
513 Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
518

Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.

Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
524

Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.

Other cases
UNITED STATES 1029